Thread: Support for tighter Acat storage

Macca, I can see what you're saying, and why you're saying it in the initial post. However I've just moved here from Canada where the laws were tightened in the 90's with some support from the gun community along these lines, and the restrictions didn't stop there. The federal police (RCMP) are now at the stage where they're permitted to interpret the law at will, and change their interpretations when it suits them. The end result is the reclassification of firearms into more restricted (outright prohibited) categories, which has yet to ever be successfully appealed. Usually they go after importers once the guns are in country and paid for, so the company is out of pocket on the whole deal and has to pay for the guns to sit in impound at port while it's fought over in court. In the end it costs the businesses customers and puts huge dents in their pocket books, hurting their ability to bring in more guns in the future, which appears to be the purpose of the whole exercise.

Interestingly, Canada had a registry for all guns, including what would be considered A Category here. You had to call a usually quite unpleasant operator to transfer a firearm to another person, then wait for them to mail you a transfer, then a new registration. Unfortunately, that also meant every time they changed their minds on what was illegal, they would send you a letter requiring it be turned over for destruction (without compensation) or you'd have a three year jail sentence. That annoyed enough people that they lobbied to remove the non-restricted/A Category registry.... which is a pity because in other ways it did help limit guns used in crime.... but it was abused by the RCMP.

So yes, the gun community would be wise to be proactive and meet the issue head on, but how they do so is the issue. I don't believe that supporting more restrictive laws is a good idea. In Canada at least, it has lead to a culture in which firearms ownership is being consistently eroded, and in many ways it appears Canada is just further down the path than NZ is at the moment... which makes sense because last I heard the RCMP had been consulted by the NZ police on their firearms program.

Where the Canadian organizations are making their greatest gains is in forming organized active national groups that are financially strong enough to employ lawyers to fight their battles. They're also slowly learning that engaging the non-shooting public is vital to removing gun control from public agenda. It's easy for the gun community to preach to the choir how guns aren't a problem (all of us have sat around the table with other hunters or shooters and talked about how ridiculous further restricting laws would be)... but we aren't the audience that needs it. Running charity fundraisers in the public realm, doing community volunteer work as a shooting organization, publicized public range days or outdoor field trips for families and children with game dinners at the end do a good job of helping the public see who the firearms community really is.

In this way, the firearms community will not burn any bridges with the NZ police, and will gain broader public support, thus removing the major impetus for increased restrictions. I've honestly been pleasantly surprised by how friendly and open the police and firearms related officials have been that I've interacted with here. Admittedly, things have been pretty limited, but I'm used to interactions being icy at best, so having someone volunteer information and make suggestions has been quite the novelty. Maybe since the bridges haven't been burned here like they have in Canada, there is an option for the firearms community to help support the police without requiring tougher laws. I'm too new here to really understand the dynamics at play, but I can at least offer insight from Canada.

In thinking about it further, if low quality A-Category storage lockers are the issue, it seems to me that Arms Officers are already capable of denying permission without a change in the laws. It is within their discretion to grant or deny storage, so without making it a legal requirement they could just decide to not pass flimsier safes. Is this not the case?